Detecting and Correcting Conservativity Principle Violations in Ontology-to-Ontology Mappings

In order to enable interoperability between ontology-based systems, ontology matching techniques have been proposed. However, when the generated mappings suffer from logical flaws, their usefulness may be diminished. In this paper we present an approximate method to detect and correct violations to the so-called conservativity principle where novel subsumption entailments between named concepts in one of the input ontologies are considered as unwanted. We show that this is indeed the case in our application domain based on the EU Optique project. Additionally, our extensive evaluation conducted with both the Optique use case and the data sets from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative (OAEI) suggests that our method is both useful and feasible in practice.Copyright 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland. The final publication is available at http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-319-11915-1_

Minimizing conservativity violations in ontology alignments: algorithms and evaluation

In order to enable interoperability between ontology-based systems, ontology matching techniques have been proposed. However, when the generated mappings lead to undesired logical consequences, their usefulness may be diminished. In this paper, we present an approach to detect and minimize the violations of the so-called conservativity principle where novel subsumption entailments between named concepts in one of the input ontologies are considered as unwanted. The practical applicability of the proposed approach is experimentally demonstrated on the datasets from the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative

LogMap family participation in the OAEI2018

We present the participation of LogMap and its variants in the OAEI 2018 campaign. The LogMap project started in January 2011 with the objective of developing a scalable and logic-based ontology matching system. This is our eight participation in the OAEI and the experience has so far been very positive. LogMap is one of the few systems that participates in (almost) all OAEI tracks

Avoiding Alignment-based Conservativity Violations through Dialogue

A number of ontology matching techniques have been proposed that rely on full disclosure of their ontological models prior to the construction of the alignment. However, within open and opportunistic environments, such approaches may not always be pragmatic or even acceptable (due to privacy concerns). Several studies have focussed on collaborative, decentralised approaches to ontology alignment, where agents negotiate the acceptability of correspondences (i.e. mappings between corresponding entities in different ontologies) acquired from past encounters, or try to ascertain novel correspondences on the fly. However, such approaches can lead to logical flaws that may undermine their utility. In this paper, we extend a dialogical approach to correspondence negotiation, whereby agents not only exchange details of possible correspondences, but also identify potential violations to the so-called conservativity principle, where novel but undesirable entailments between named concepts in one of the input ontologies emerge. We present a formal model of the dialogue, and show how \conservativity violations can be repaired (using an existing correspondence repair system) during the dialogue through the exchange of repairs. We then illustrate how agents negotiate over possible correspondences and repairs by means of a walkthrough example

Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2015

cheatham2016aInternational audienceOntology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2015 offered 8 tracks with 15 test cases followed by 22 participants. Since 2011, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2015 campaign

Results of the Ontology Alignment Evaluation Initiative 2014

dragisic2014aInternational audienceOntology matching consists of finding correspondences between semantically related entities of two ontologies. OAEI campaigns aim at comparing ontology matching systems on precisely defined test cases. These test cases can use ontologies of different nature (from simple thesauri to expressive OWL ontologies) and use different modalities, e.g., blind evaluation, open evaluation and consensus. OAEI 2014 offered 7 tracks with 9 test cases followed by 14 participants. Since 2010, the campaign has been using a new evaluation modality which provides more automation to the evaluation. This paper is an overall presentation of the OAEI 2014 campaign

Proceedings of The Tenth International Workshop on Ontology Matching (OM-2015)

shvaiko2016aInternational audienceno abstrac

Completing and Debugging Ontologies: state of the art and challenges

As semantically-enabled applications require high-quality ontologies, developing and maintaining ontologies that are as correct and complete as possible is an important although difficult task in ontology engineering. A key step is ontology debugging and completion. In general, there are two steps: detecting defects and repairing defects. In this paper we discuss the state of the art regarding the repairing step. We do this by formalizing the repairing step as an abduction problem and situating the state of the art with respect to this framework. We show that there are still many open research problems and show opportunities for further work and advancing the field.Comment: 56 page